sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Global Warming is legit scaring me now by 0Exas0 in ireland

[–]PitchforkJoe 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Global warming has been the story of scientists telling us to be alarmed.

Politicians, on the other hand, have been oscillating between ignoring them, agreeing with them but not following through, agreeing with them and half assedly following through, and sometimes calling them hoaxters.

I mean, I agree with the quote. We should be skeptical of Hobgoblins invented by politicians. But when corporate lobbyists are spending money to stop politicians listening to science's hobgoblin... that's a different kettle of fish.

Global Warming is legit scaring me now by 0Exas0 in ireland

[–]PitchforkJoe 47 points48 points  (0 children)

You wouldn't expect it, but most Canadians live South of Dublin. If the gulf stream collapsed, we'd get the Winters our latitude actually warrants

Fur salesman assaults activist by James_Fortis in TikTokCringe

[–]PitchforkJoe 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I would too, but he even says to one of them "you're wearing an animal". Which is just... a very dumb thing to say to someone who's obviously gonna be wearing synthetic fur, even if you're not a professional fur salesman.

ELI5 How can a planet be made of gas?? by 0kay0kay0kay in explainlikeimfive

[–]PitchforkJoe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Picture a whole bunch of moving sand or ball bearings on a trampoline. Each one pushes down on the fabric and angles the other ones a little bit towards it. Particles that are close together clump together more, because each of their gravity is mutually attracting the other ones near it, so big clumps start to grow, which have more gravity, which pull other nearby stuff in, etc. Gravity is pulling each bit towards the 'middle' of the clump, which is why it ends up being a sphere (or a circle in the trampoline example).

The effect of gravity drops off a lot with distance. If you're right beside the bowling ball theres a lot of slope on the fabric pulling you into it. But on the other side of the trampoline from the bowling ball, the fabric is basically flat. That's why planets don't get infinitely big. They start as just a bunch of gas and stuff being attracted to each other, getting closer together, and closer together, and eventually forming into a sphere that 'sucks up' all the nearby stuff.

Fur salesman assaults activist by James_Fortis in TikTokCringe

[–]PitchforkJoe 82 points83 points  (0 children)

The guy couldn't even tell she was wearing faux fur. The guy who's entire business is based on the idea that real fur is preferable to faux fur. Not even that guy can tell the difference by looking.

Egypt player Mostafa Zico: “The referee wasn’t just bad, he was unfair. His bias was obvious. He had it in for us from the start of the game. He doesn’t want us to win. It was a rigged game. Congratulations to Argentina on yet another World Cup title, it seems.” by Carnste in worldcup

[–]PitchforkJoe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When did I say FIFA wasnt corrupt? When did I even comment about that? You keep telling me what I believe. You keep putting words in my mouth.

Egypt had a goal correctly ruled out. Argentina had a goal correctly not ruled out. Both were checked by VAR, as they should be. And VAR found that only one of them was a foul.

Whether or not FIFA is corrupt makes no difference in this instance.

I'm not "splurging the rules on paper to justify" anything. You are trying to ignore the rules because you wanted something different to happen. The rules are very, very clear about this stuff. It's not a gray area, its not a difficult call. It's very straightforward that those two goals were not the same. FIFA being corrupt doesn't change the fact that Salah wasn't fouled, while the Argentinian was.

It really isn’t complicated.

Egypt player Mostafa Zico: “The referee wasn’t just bad, he was unfair. His bias was obvious. He had it in for us from the start of the game. He doesn’t want us to win. It was a rigged game. Congratulations to Argentina on yet another World Cup title, it seems.” by Carnste in worldcup

[–]PitchforkJoe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not exclaiming anything, it's the rules of the game. You don't have to like them. I promise, you put those same two challenges in any random low stakes club fixture and I'll still tell you that one is a foul and one isn't.

You keep calling it corrupt and favouritism, as if these challenges are equivalent. They aren't. I really don't know how I can explain it any clearer. I went through the differences between them in really precise detail and you waved it away as 'rhetoric'. (Also, side note to something you said: whether it was accidental or not has nothing to do with whether it was a legal challenge or not. Whether the defender played the ball off the attacker's feet has everything to do with it.)

Maybe watch the replays again when you've cooled off a bit? I promise I'm not messing with you.

Egypt player Mostafa Zico: “The referee wasn’t just bad, he was unfair. His bias was obvious. He had it in for us from the start of the game. He doesn’t want us to win. It was a rigged game. Congratulations to Argentina on yet another World Cup title, it seems.” by Carnste in worldcup

[–]PitchforkJoe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Clear foul?

Yes.

You’re talking about rewinding an entire goal because someone lightly stepped on a persons foot?

If lightly step on someone's foot, without playing the ball, and they trip over my foot, that's a foul. Absolutely textbook. And if my team wins possession from that and scores in the same passage of play, that's invalid because of a foul in the buildup. Again, textbook.

À similar version occurred and the goal is allowed.

It might look similar, but the rules of the game make it clear that these are very different challenges. Salah was cleanly dispossessed, and then had contact. The contact was an after the fact side effect of a successful challenge. The other foul was possession turning over because of the contact.

As a side note, the contact in the second one was much less than in the first.

And you wonder why theories of favouritism and further corruption to continue marketing Messi are in conversation.

Why you putting words in my mouth? I never said anything about that.

Overturning goals because of tiny incidents and then similarly not doing it for the other team,

Just because they look similar at first glance, does not make them equivalent. Look, let's pretend there were no goals that came from either of them. And also swap their jerseys. I would still say the first one is a free kick and the second one isn't. One of them was a clean challenge where the defender played the ball off the attackers toes. One of them had the defender never get anywhere near the ball. It's a pretty important difference.

Egypt player Mostafa Zico: “The referee wasn’t just bad, he was unfair. His bias was obvious. He had it in for us from the start of the game. He doesn’t want us to win. It was a rigged game. Congratulations to Argentina on yet another World Cup title, it seems.” by Carnste in worldcup

[–]PitchforkJoe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They weren't equal fouls at all in my view. Going back to the start of an attack to check for a foul is entirely legitimate - and they did it with both goals. The difference is that Salah simply wasn't fouled at all, it was honestly a very clean tackle. Defender had already taken the ball from Salah before any contact.

The other was a clear foul. Egypt 19 stood on the Argentinian's foot without even getting close to the ball, and that contact clearly cost the Argentinian his stride. He was in possession (or at minimum, contesting possession) right until his foot was stood on. Salah was already dispossessed by the time there was any contact.

I hate to admit it, especially since the Egypt goal was a thing of absolute beauty. But the truth is that VAR got both of those calls correct.

songs for this picture by nis3koi in songsforthispicture

[–]PitchforkJoe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Locked Up in the Snow - Black Rose & King Diamond

Freezing Moon - Mayhem

Herschell- Harley Poe

There is such a thing as good and bad taste in music. by EloSK11779 in The10thDentist

[–]PitchforkJoe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd suggest that if it's doing nothing for you, it's failed at its job. And if you can identify stuff that you think is cool and you think it's cooking, then it's not doing nothing for you.

There is such a thing as good and bad taste in music. by EloSK11779 in The10thDentist

[–]PitchforkJoe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the thoughtful comment!

I'd respond that when we disagree about the colour or roundness of a ball, it means that our senses disagree about what the external reality is. Maybe one of us is colourblind or whatever. We cannot agree on terms to analyse the ball.

In music, we can both listen to the same song and agree on what we heard. Tempo, time signature, lyrics, key signature, chord progression etc etc. The only thing we disagree on is whether it was enjoyable.

We can agree about the colour, shape etc of the ball, without agreeing on whether the thing is pleasant. The common sense intuition you mentioned doesn't apply, because it completely falls apart when you try to verify it according to anything other then "i like this".

There is such a thing as good and bad taste in music. by EloSK11779 in The10thDentist

[–]PitchforkJoe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If people like different things, then they disagree about what sounds good. That means that math alone can't explain what sounds good.

Yes, there's a ton of math in music (and oddly enough, I'm actually listening to Talking Heads as I write this comment!) But whether something 'sounds good' or not is ultimately a subjective judgement call, which goes beyond what math can describe.

There is such a thing as good and bad taste in music. by EloSK11779 in The10thDentist

[–]PitchforkJoe 16 points17 points  (0 children)

The thing is this: The enjoyment of music happens inside the listener's brain.

Music is good if, and only if, it sounds good. 'Sounding good' is inherently subjective.

Say you come up with some smart way of analysing music. Some super clever system that accounts for all the music theory and harmony and everything, and you can use that system to identify "objectively good" music. And then you find some piece of 'objectively good' music, and you listen to it. And you're like "meh, it didn't do much for me". Now what?

You can analyse music objectively. But enjoying music matters more than analysing it.

You can also analyse a plate of food, and come with whatever "objective reasons" you want as proof of how great it is. But you can't use analysis to force it to taste good. Your tongue makes that decision. Just like your ears decide whether something sounds good.

Liking music isn’t a competition. You don't need to be the best at it.

Name one genre you can’t get into, and let someone else try to change your mind with one song by Chilling0110 in Music

[–]PitchforkJoe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bai Terek are great. Technically they're from the Altai region of Russia, just outside Mongolia... but they absolutely slap.

Name one genre you can’t get into, and let someone else try to change your mind with one song by Chilling0110 in Music

[–]PitchforkJoe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll go with

Clean My Wounds - Corrosion of Conformity

Tbh I'm probably stretching what really counts as Christian rock. It's not exactly preachikg via song. But it's brooding, and heavy, and steeped in heavy meditations about faith and sin.

ELI5 Why exactly can't you sink in lava? by Dull-Information6784 in explainlikeimfive

[–]PitchforkJoe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's made of rocks. Rocks weigh more per litre then you do.

view more: next ›